World Cup: Soaring Cost of the FIFA World Cup in USA: Taxpayer Burden and Fan Frustration – Walter Potenza

by Walter Potenza, contributing writer

I am a very big soccer fan and grew up playing pro and semi-pro football in Italy and here in the States. I have also attended five World Cup events over the years, but I have never seen a sense of detachment from the fans like now. The country is not responding to the grandeur of the event, and probably never will.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, is set to be the biggest ever, featuring 48 teams and 104 matches. The United States will host most of the games, with 78 matches in at least 11 cities, including the final at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. However, as the event gets closer, the focus has shifted from excitement to concerns about the huge financial burden and growing frustration among fans and residents.

Each host city incurs costs of $100 to $200 million, with taxpayers often covering these expenses while FIFA earns billions in revenue. At the same time, city officials and supporters note that the event could bring lasting benefits to communities, such as improved infrastructure, better transportation, and increased tourism revenue, which could help local economies beyond the tournament itself.

The Price Tag: Who Pays and Why?

The total cost to organize the 2026 tournament is expected to exceed $12 billion, covering security, transportation, renovations, and logistics across all host countries. In the United States, each city must pay for major expenses, including infrastructure upgrades, stadium renovations, security, logistics, and public fan zones. FIFA also requires modern amenities, changes to soccer fields, improved media facilities, and other upgrades. These costs add up quickly, even in stadiums that already host NFL games.

For example, New Jersey deals with high transit costs. The state plans to charge $150 for a round-trip train ticket from Manhattan to MetLife Stadium, which usually costs about $13. This is meant to help cover a $48 million bill for extra services during eight matches, including the final.

According to a FEMA release cited by Sports Business Journal, the U.S. host cities for this summer’s World Cup will receive $625 million in federal security funding. However, cities are still required to provide FIFA with free, high-quality office space and cover any local costs not funded by the federal government. For many cities, these costs reach the higher end of the $100 to $200 million range.

Other costs include improving transportation, providing extra public safety beyond what federal aid covers, and organizing fan festivals. FIFA’s contracts limit how much hosts can earn from these events, reducing their revenue potential. In many places, tournament ticket sales are tax-exempt, so cities and states miss out on millions of dollars that could have gone to education or healthcare. FIFA expects to make $11 to $13 billion from tickets, broadcasting, sponsorships, and more, but host cities get only a small share and have to hope for a boost from tourism, which is not guaranteed.

Supporters point to possible economic benefits. FIFA predicts the tournament could add $40.9 billion to North America’s GDP, and each U.S. host city might see $160 to $620 million in activity. Some improvements, like better streets in Atlanta or new transit in the Dallas area, could help cities in the long run.

Still, past events show that these forecasts often exaggerate the benefits and downplay the real costs and disruptions. For example, after the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, many promised infrastructure projects were left incomplete, and several stadiums were rarely used, putting financial strain on host cities. Similarly, the 2016 Rio Olympics led to significant deficits for the city, with economic impact far below projections. The 2002 World Cup in Japan and South Korea also produced mixed results, with some venues struggling to remain viable afterward. These examples suggest that the actual economic payoff for host cities is often lower than the initial projections.

Why Fans Are Not Positive About the Costs

Soccer fans from the U.S. and abroad are widely frustrating. Ticket prices have been heavily criticized, with general admission starting higher than in past tournaments and premium or final seats costing thousands of dollars. Some reports say tickets for the U.S. opening match are over $1,000, and resale prices for big games are even higher. Even President Trump said he “wouldn’t pay” $1,000 for the U.S. opening match.

Other costs make things worse, such as expensive hotels, flights, parking, and high transit fares. International fans also have to deal with a strong U.S. dollar and high travel costs, which make attending difficult for many. Many people feel the event is aimed at wealthy fans instead of being accessible to everyone.

Hotel bookings and reservations in cities like Los Angeles and Seattle are reportedly 80% below expectations, indicating weak demand even though millions of ticket holders believe the event prioritizes profit over their experience. They complain about limits on tailgating, changes to seating, and the sense that FIFA and the hosts are focused on making money rather than creating a great atmosphere.

According to FIFA, the 2026 World Cup will be held in 16 stadiums across Canada, Mexico, and the USA, which is the largest number of venues since the 2002 tournament in Korea and Japan. While this allows for more fans to attend, it can make the experience feel less intimate, with players often appearing distant in these large venues. In response to some of these criticisms, organizers have announced a few initiatives to boost fan engagement and accessibility.

These include enhanced fan zones in each host city offering interactive activities, cultural performances, and affordable food choices, as well as partnerships with public transit agencies to offer discounted or bundled fares for ticket holders. FIFA has also indicated it will increase the number of official fan festivals and create accessible ticketing options for families, students, and people with disabilities. While these programs are meant to provide a more welcoming and inclusive atmosphere, their impact remains to be seen as fans weigh whether such efforts are enough to offset concerns about costs and barriers. Although growing soccer in the U.S. is a goal, these high barriers could deter the fans needed to sustain that growth.

According to a travel advisory from Amnesty International USA, concerns about the human rights situation in the United States ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup have prompted warnings for fans, players, journalists, and other visitors, highlighting an unwelcoming environment and a lack of concrete guarantees from FIFA or the U.S. government. Some fans are even boycotting the event because they fear being detained or harassed, and social media is full of warnings like “ICE ICE ICE” that discourage visits.

Even though officials say security is focused on trafficking and counterfeits, these concerns still make people hesitate. In response, both FIFA and U.S. officials have issued statements reassuring fans and visitors about the event’s safety and inclusivity. FIFA has emphasized its commitment to upholding human rights standards and has promised to work with local authorities to ensure the safety and fair treatment of all attendees. U.S. officials have also stated that efforts are underway to create a welcoming environment and that additional training and resources have been allocated to address concerns about security and accessibility. Still, for many, these reassurances may not fully address the underlying worries, contributing to hesitation.

This political climate adds to the cost concerns. Fans wonder why public money is being spent on the event when there are other important needs at home. International fans are also weighing political issues against the high prices. Some Americans are unhappy about using local resources to support a global event that may not benefit their communities much. With cancellations and lower demand, the expected tourism boost may not happen, and cities could end up with financial losses.

Critics say that having multiple host countries spreads the matches too far apart, making it harder for fans to travel between cities. Political and economic challenges also make the U.S. part of the tournament less attractive compared to previous hosts, where the atmosphere was more neutral or festive.

A Mixed Legacy?

The 2026 World Cup might bring great memories and better infrastructure, but the way the finances are set up, with cities and taxpayers paying most of the costs and taking the risks while FIFA makes large profits, makes many people skeptical. Fans’ feelings reflect bigger frustrations with major sports events: rising prices, less access, and doubts about whether it is worth it, especially in a divided time. As kickoff nears, organizers face pressure to deliver an inclusive, exciting tournament despite these headwinds. For many fans, the “cost” extends beyond dollars to accessibility and welcome.

To address these concerns, some options could help make the World Cup fairer and more accessible. Cities or organizers could offer ticket subsidies or set aside some affordable tickets for residents, students, or community groups. Revenue-sharing agreements between FIFA and host cities could let more of the profits stay in the local economy. Community programs and sports clinics, supported by tournament funds, might help ensure lasting social benefits. Making transit more affordable or free for ticketholders and investing in public spaces that will continue to serve the community after the tournament could also ease some of the burdens and frustrations.

Whether the on-field spectacle overcomes these off-field controversies will define its success. Without addressing affordability and perceptions, the 2026 World Cup risks being remembered more for its burdens than its goals.

___

Image, top: Adidas – Official ball of 2026 FIFA World Cup – TRIONDA, meaning three (Tri) waves (Onda) – the ball’s red, green and blue design pays homage to the three host countries 

___

READ “Ask Chef Walter” every Sunday in RINewsToday

Master Chef Walter Potenza

There is a constant, recognizable thread in the career of Walter Potenza to elevate the level of Italian culinary culture in the United States. Besides his unquestionable culinary talent and winning business perspective, Chef Walter has been a relentless educator with passion and knowledge who defeats stereotypes. His life, career, and values are a model, an example to follow by any chef of Italian gastronomy working outside Italy.

Chef Walter appears regularly on National and International Networks such as Food Network, ABC, CBS, NBC, RAI, FOX, and Publications such as NY. Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Food & Wine, Saveur, Gourmet, and several Italian media outlets.